Bad faith ... Wow

[Lanny MacDonald*]

1st off its not a hold out if he has completed his contract.

why shouldnt he be allowed to sit out until he has a contract offer that he agree's to ? is it not his human right to choose to not play hockey for less than 1billion dollars per shift ?

thats an exageration of course, but the point remains, why should he not be allowed to sit out until an agreement is reached ? was he put on this earth simply to be a gladiator for us ?

dr

And the league is not making a holdout or any sort of action where the player decides to sit as being illegal or impossible. The league has just put a drop dead date in the CBA for contracts to be signed. Anything signed after that and the player sits for a year and does not get paid. It is no different than what you or I go through (if you're at the level you claim to be at). A company tenders an offer for your services and lets you know you have until X date to negotiate and decide. If you fail to submit your contract to them by the time in question the company takes that as a no and goes to the next candidate that has been identified and recruited for the position. The players have choices as do the teams.

The nice thing about this is that it develops urgency on both parties. The players need to get signed by a certain date, and the teams need to fill out their roster by a certain date. If the player you're trying to sign doesn't want to sign, then you can spend your money on another body that will sign and hopefully provide the same bang for the buck. This type of clause has been long over-due IMO. They have deadlines all damn year, why not ones at the start for setting 50 man organizational rosters for the season? I applaud the NHL for this. Its common sense and affects both sides equally.

 

[Jobu]

Being RFAs does not stop them from being able to go to Europe and play.

Big deal. It stops them, in practical terms, from playing in the NHL. Group II offer sheets are things of the past.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

1st off its not a hold out if he has completed his contract.

why shouldnt he be allowed to sit out until he has a contract offer that he agree's to ? is it not his human right to choose to not play hockey for less than 1billion dollars per shift ?

thats an exageration of course, but the point remains, why should he not be allowed to sit out until an agreement is reached ? was he put on this earth simply to be a gladiator for us ?

dr

Did you even read the proposal?

They aren't banning hold-outs.

They are making it so that if you hold out, you miss an entire year. Both Kovalev and Peca did that under the old CBA.

I would think any fan of the game would applaud the move as holdouts have long been a problem. It's not good for fans or the league to have impact players sitting out and not playing.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

And the league is not making a holdout or any sort of action where the player decides to sit as being illegal or impossible. The league has just put a drop dead date in the CBA for contracts to be signed. Anything signed after that and the player sits for a year and does not get paid. It is no different than what you or I go through (if you're at the level you claim to be at). A company tenders an offer for your services and lets you know you have until X date to negotiate and decide. If you fail to submit your contract to them by the time in question the company takes that as a no and goes to the next candidate that has been identified and recruited for the position. The players have choices as do the teams.

The nice thing about this is that it develops urgency on both parties. The players need to get signed by a certain date, and the teams need to fill out their roster by a certain date. If the player you're trying to sign doesn't want to sign, then you can spend your money on another body that will sign and hopefully provide the same bang for the buck. This type of clause has been long over-due IMO. They have deadlines all damn year, why not ones at the start for setting 50 man organizational rosters for the season? I applaud the NHL for this. Its common sense and affects both sides equally.

fair enough and the teams should be able to set a line in the sand and if the player lets it pass, tough beans. i have no problem with that. whats stopping them for doing it now ? The Canucks did it with Schaefer, why dont more teams just do that ?

however, legislation that doesnt allow either party to change their mind is an unfair burden to both parties. in your example, the company can set a date and 3 months later aproach me again if they choose.

the NHL is trying to not allow it. i dont like the dynamic it creates in the negotiation.

however, and in fairness for both sides, the # of cases of players who dont agree on a contract before the season starts is not startling. its a dozen or so players per year. its not a big deal in the big picture, which is why its dumb that the owners would try to hammer another point like this, just for the sake of it.

every point in the owners offfer is a "give back" by the players. since this is really inconsequential, its a flagrant power play by the owners.

if their goal is to get a cap (linkage), the are going about it in a manner that can only be resolved by breaking the union. if they instead GAVE instead of TAKE in the other points, maybe there wouldnt be such a hard stand against them.

why fight a battle like this (14 day signing) when your goal is to win the war. what a waste and it just reaks of manouvering ande spite.

dr

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Big deal. It stops them, in practical terms, from playing in the NHL. Group II offer sheets are things of the past.

Under the old CBA they are. Unless you have access to the future I don't think you can say with any authority whatsoever that RFA's might be treated differently under a new CBA. If other inflationary tools are taken out then restricted free agency may play a much bigger role.

But obviously your mind is closed to that possibility. Not surprising.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Did you even read the proposal?

They aren't banning hold-outs.

They are making it so that if you hold out, you miss an entire year. Both Kovalev and Peca did that under the old CBA.

I would think any fan of the game would applaud the move as holdouts have long been a problem. It's not good for fans or the league to have impact players sitting out and not playing.

its worse for the league to continue this work stoppage. why dont the owners make a proposal that pays each player 150k for 10 years. thats better for the league than the offer they make now, right ?

the fact is, if you want the players to agree to linkage, the owners need to stop hammering away at points that are so minor. their are what 1 or 2 players a season who extend their sit out past training camp and maybe a dozen or so who sit out training camp ? why make such a big deal out of it.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

The owners have given up the right to add a players who's rights they hold if they can't convince him to sign a contract within 14 days.

The pressure is on both sides.

 

[HockeyCritter]

who says otherwise ?

under the old system, the team could not offer a player a QO and cut him completly. he could offer a QO and presumably if the player is sitting out it means that he rejected it. once the player rejects the QO, the team is free to offer whatever they want and retain rights to match and compensation.

why dont you give an example though of a player who has refused his QO, sat out into the season and should be offered a reduction in pay. hmm ? so name some one ? i bet you cant.

dr

I think you are totally missing the point.

Players have the right (and I am not arguing against the removal of said right) to hold out if they feel that the qualifying offer tenured by ownership is disproportion to his value. The player can hold out or file for arbitration. If he files for arbitration the owners have the right to walk away from the table thereby making the player a UFA (again, no risk to the player). The point I was trying to make was that owners, as of now, have no recourse to lower a player’s contract when they believe the player is paid more than his value. Basically I am stating that there should be two-way arbitration.

(And I really think the antagonistical tone of your post is unwarranted; if you were uncertain of my point, I would gladly have clarified it for you)

 

[HockeyCritter]

This entire discussion is about players whose contracts have expired, and are now restricted free agents. Why people keep bringing up Alexei Yashin-type situations I have no idea.

To repeat: the league is trying to ban players not under contract from sitting out in hopes of a better deal. This has nothing to do with players under contract saying they won't play unless they get a new deal first. The courts told Alexei Yashin where he could stick that idea already.

How is Gonchar’s propensity to hold out at the start of each contract remotely related to Yashin?

The NHL proposal would force both sides to come to an agreement within 14 days of the start of the season (or was it camp) . . . again, this caveat is a negotiating ploy.

 

[Epsilon]

How is Gonchar’s propensity to hold out at the start of each contract remotely related to Yashin?

The NHL proposal would force both sides to come to an agreement within 14 days of the start of the season (or was it camp) . . . again, this caveat is a negotiating ploy.

The point is some people in this thread are not paying attention to what the original post was about and are complaining about players holding out during their contracts.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think you are totally missing the point.

Players have the right (and I am not arguing against the removal of said right) to hold out if they feel that the qualifying offer tenured by ownership is disproportion to his value. The player can hold out or file for arbitration. If he files for arbitration the owners have the right to walk away from the table thereby making the player a UFA (again, no risk to the player). The point I was trying to make was that owners, as of now, have no recourse to lower a player’s contract when they believe the player is paid more than his value. Basically I am stating that there should be two-way arbitration.

(And I really think the antagonistical tone of your post is unwarranted; if you were uncertain of my point, I would gladly have clarified it for you)

well, sorry about that.

anyhow, the players offered 2 way arbitration, so there is common ground on their part.

but in reality, can you name a player who rejected his QO, sat out past training camp and really should have been paid less ? its just an uncommom combination. and if there really are no or few real case examples, why are we devising a system to control it ?

dr

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

in your example, the company can set a date and 3 months later aproach me again if they choose.

Then you're not at the level you claim to be at. There are no second chances when companies are looking for high profile players. You get a contract offer and you make your best deal and sign, or the boat sails. Any executive recruiter will tell you that exact same thing. Strike your best deal or don't cry in your beer when the company moves on.

the NHL is trying to not allow it. i dont like the dynamic it creates in the negotiation.

Tough. That's the real world. Its smething that both sides have to deal with. I personally love the fact that I know going into the season what players are going to be available for my team. No more of this whining about this guy being available. He isn't because of the choices made during the off-season. This issue is dead. Focus on the games taking place, not the crap off the ice.

however, and in fairness for both sides, the # of cases of players who dont agree on a contract before the season starts is not startling. its a dozen or so players per year. its not a big deal in the big picture, which is why its dumb that the owners would try to hammer another point like this, just for the sake of it.

This puts an end to half a dozen holdouts a year and works fair for both parties. Haven't we seen what this negotiation will do when there is no urgency? This creates urgency and ends a problem for the league and the off ice circus that has been a distration for years. Focus the product on the ice, not on the goofs who chose not to play.

every point in the owners offfer is a "give back" by the players. since this is really inconsequential, its a flagrant power play by the owners.

if their goal is to get a cap (linkage), the are going about it in a manner that can only be resolved by breaking the union. if they instead GAVE instead of TAKE in the other points, maybe there wouldnt be such a hard stand against them.

why fight a battle like this (14 day signing) when your goal is to win the war. what a waste and it just reaks of manouvering ande spite.

dr

And maybe its a mechnism put inplace to be given away? Or one that the league and the players have already agreed upon? We don't know. Personally I love it. I had in my mock CBA proposal as a mechanism and I think its great the league finally clued in on a really big problem with the game IMO. Too much stuff goes on off the ice that is a distraction.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Holdouts are just trouble. Evgeni Nabokov and Brad Stuart( who only got a a pathetic 29 poins the previous year) screwed SanJose over when he held out. Gaborik and Dupuis screwed Minny over.

Morrison held out after only playing 88 games for the devils. He didn't deserve to holdout that quick.

Elias held out after his 2nd full season with the Devils with a 50 point season. Him and Morrison signed around the same time.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

How is Gonchar’s propensity to hold out at the start of each contract remotely related to Yashin?

The NHL proposal would force both sides to come to an agreement within 14 days of the start of the season (or was it camp) . . . again, this caveat is a negotiating ploy.

its not a hold out if he doesnt have a contract.

i guess i dont understand why we expect these players to play hockey just because they are offered a lot of money.

if gonchar wants more than his team is offering, thats his right. if hte team wants to change their mind 3 months into the season, that should be their right as well.

dr

 

[HockeyCritter]

So I see you have trouble spelling also critter : the pot calling the kettle black : Whem you become perfect then and only then can you criticize others. Or as Jesue said take the gleem out of your eye so that you can see to take the speck from others.

Now madam, it is on the owners to get a deal done since they caused the problem and locked out the players. And by the way if the owners want an impasse they are headed for danger that could and more likely will blow up in their collective faces. Just remember labor wins these cases more often in the sports business the does management. Would love to see all drafted players not under contract become free agents and since I know for a fact you are a caps fan it would drive you crazy .

I'm not really sure of your point . . .please do clarify so that I can properly address them in turn.

Regarding the spelling comment, I do not believe I have correct anyone’s grammar, syntax, usage, or spelling on this board and if I have, please direct me to that post. I certainly can tell the difference between a spelling or usage error and one cause by “fat fingering†the keyboard.

Also, to which kettle or pot are you referring?

And if you know me, as you assert (though I find that unlikely), you would know that I thrive on contentiousness and that I am a New Yorker.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

well, sorry about that.

anyhow, the players offered 2 way arbitration, so there is common ground on their part.

but in reality, can you name a player who rejected his QO, sat out past training camp and really should have been paid less ? its just an uncommom combination. and if there really are no or few real case examples, why are we devising a system to control it ?

dr

The players so called "2 way arbitration" was a joke. Period. They only want it their way. It's going to be unlimited on both sides.

 

[Epsilon]

Then you're not at the level you claim to be at. There are no second chances when companies are looking for high profile players. You get a contract offer and you make your best deal and sign, or the boat sails. Any executive recruiter will tell you that exact same thing. Strike your best deal or don't cry in your beer when the company moves on.



Tough. That's the real world. Its smething that both sides have to deal with. I personally love the fact that I know going into the season what players are going to be available for my team. No more of this whining about this guy being available. He isn't because of the choices made during the off-season. This issue is dead. Focus on the games taking place, not the crap off the ice.



This puts an end to half a dozen holdouts a year and works fair for both parties. Haven't we seen what this negotiation will do when there is no urgency? This creates urgency and ends a problem for the league and the off ice circus that has been a distration for years. Focus the product on the ice, not on the goofs who chose not to play.



And maybe its a mechnism put inplace to be given away? Or one that the league and the players have already agreed upon? We don't know. Personally I love it. I had in my mock CBA proposal as a mechanism and I think its great the league finally clued in on a really big problem with the game IMO. Too much stuff goes on off the ice that is a distraction.

I love how you make it sound like this is fait accomplit and that the players will have to agree to every little thing the owners want. When the time comes that the NHLPA finally realises they will need to agree to a cap, they will submit a proposal that includes one and favours them on all of the small issues.

But of course, that would probably be considered a loss to the most pro-owner bootlicks just because the players actually get to decide some things for themselves.

 

[HockeyCritter]

The NHL proposal would force both sides to come to an agreement within 14 days of the start of the season (or was it camp) . . .

Critter: you cannot force someone to take an offer that they feel is wrong. Whats wrong if they cannot agree on just compensation, the player becomes afree agent ( unrestricted ) and goes after a better deal. Oh, I know what your problem is with that, you want management to have total control and that will not happen.

No, one again you failed to see the point. No one is arguing that players should be forced into bad contracts. They certainly have an avenue of recourse via arbitration and/or holding out. On the other hand, it does seem that you are arguing that owners should be forced to continually pay bad contracts without a venue to renegotiate. I merely countered that just as players have rights to get the best deal possible (visa vie holding out) owners should have the ability to restructure deals when necessary, in this case using two-way arbitration as the vehicle.

 

[Epsilon]

No, one again you failed to see the point. No one is arguing that players should be forced into bad contracts. They certainly have an avenue of recourse via arbitration and/or holding out. On the other hand, it does seem that you are arguing that owners should be forced to continually pay bad contracts without a venue to renegotiate. I merely countered that just as players have rights to get the best deal possible (visa vie holding out) owners should have the ability to restructure deals when necessary, in this case using two-way arbitration as the vehicle.

Except that restructuring an existing contract and holding out are two completely different things.

 

[HockeyCritter]

its not a hold out if he doesnt have a contract.

i guess i dont understand why we expect these players to play hockey just because they are offered a lot of money.

if gonchar wants more than his team is offering, thats his right. if hte team wants to change their mind 3 months into the season, that should be their right as well.

dr

Ah, I see the hang up is the word "holdout" - - when it should be with-holding??? **giggle**

But I do agree there is a difference between a player electing not to honor his valid contract and one who refuses to sign a new deal unless he receives what he considers to be fair value. To be 100-percent clear, I am referring to a player whose current contract has expired.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Except that restructuring an existing contract and holding out are two completely different things.

Yes, I realized I misspoke (mistyped) when I said existing contract when what I really meant was new contract. I think once a player and an owner agreed to a deal that deal needs to be honored on both sides. However, once that deal is up, the owner should have the ability to offer the player a lower contract if he feels the player has not lived up to his side of the deal - - again two-way arbitration seems the likely vehicle.

Is that a wee bit clearer?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Yes, I realized I misspoke (mistyped) when I said existing contract when what I really meant was new contract. I think once a player and an owner agreed to a deal that deal needs to be honored on both sides. However, once that deal is up, the owner should have the ability to offer the player a lower contract if he feels the player has not lived up to his side of the deal - - again two-way arbitration seems the likely vehicle.

Is that a wee bit clearer?

yes, everyone is on the same page, well at least you and i are.

however, even under the old system, the team had a chance to lower the offer to the player.

i am still waiting for an example though of this is in reality. what players have sat out past training camp and deserved a lower contract ? presumably, if the player and team have agreed to a contract, both sides were satisfied with teh amount. so are there really any examples of players deserving less and getting more ? and if so, isnt that the fault of the stupid manager ?

dr

 

[HockeyCritter]

The players so called "2 way arbitration" was a joke. Period. They only want it their way. It's going to be unlimited on both sides.

If I remember correctly, the players allowed owners to take a player to arbitration ONCE in his career and no more than any two players in three years. The concept of two-way arbitration is a good one, just not under the terms described by the PA.

EDIT: And is anyone else experiencing board gremlins?

 

[HockeyCritter]

yes, everyone is on the same page, well at least you and i are.

however, even under the old system, the team had a chance to lower the offer to the player.

i am still waiting for an example though of this is in reality. what players have sat out past training camp and deserved a lower contract ? presumably, if the player and team have agreed to a contract, both sides were satisfied with teh amount. so are there really any examples of players deserving less and getting more ? and if so, isnt that the fault of the stupid manager ?

dr

Anyone on the current Ranger roster . . . .**giggle**

 

[Epsilon]

Yes, I realized I misspoke (mistyped) when I said existing contract when what I really meant was new contract. I think once a player and an owner agreed to a deal that deal needs to be honored on both sides. However, once that deal is up, the owner should have the ability to offer the player a lower contract if he feels the player has not lived up to his side of the deal - - again two-way arbitration seems the likely vehicle.

Is that a wee bit clearer?

OK fine then. I think if arbitration is a two-way street, then there also has to be a more balanced mechanism for walking away from arbitration rewards. For instance, when a team walks, the player becomes a UFA but the team can match any offer below 80% of the arbitration award. How about if a player doesn't like the offer, he can walk and become a UFA, but then the team can match any offer below 120% of the arbitration award? So if there isn't a team out there that thinks the player is worth significantly more than his arbitration award, his team has a chance to retain him. Either that, or make a free agency level between restricted and unrestricted, where the compensation for signing players is a lot less.